Stephen_BostonMA

O.K. Then those two statements are contradicted by this one:Pregnancy is more that just refraining from “taking back�? one’s uterus. There are significant responsibilities/sacrifices/burdens/commitments that a woman must bear in order to keep a fetus alive. Few situations approximate the amount of responsibility placed upon pregnant women. None of your analogies (the former slave owner forced to work the fields himself, the person bothered by his noisy neighbor’s loud music, and someone finding an abandoned baby at his doorstep) are adequate. Plus, pregnancy always puts a woman's life at risk (fortunately, advances in medicine have minimized the risk).

That’s why pregnancy, IMO, is a special case and should be treated as such under the law.

Anne Fidel

I do think that a child who is going to be killed at birth or born so messed-up from his/her mother's drug habit would probably be better off not being born at all. We're not talking about putting people out of their misery for being miserable, although a case could be made for that if you're discussing Euthenasia. My point is that all anti-abortionists go around talking about how abortion is murder, but they never seem to be prepared to open their homes to these kids who will be born without parents who want them. No one takes a minute to think about the fates of these precious babies, they're far more concerned with forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies and being appalled that she would have the audacity to make her own reproductive choices.

I am not for late-term abortions, unless there is a risk to the life of the mother, or the baby has such profound birth defects that it cannot live. However, I do not see a problem with early abortions, when the fetus cannot feel or think. No one is really harmed there. The potential for a human being is ended, that's all. Yes, it's sad and it's tragic, but abortions are usually not done lightly. I could not bring myself to have one, and I'm glad I didn't, but that's not to say that there aren't really good reasons to do it.

long winded fool

What you are saying is that you need more criteria on what makes a human. Too bad. No one else does because there is none. "Human" is not a specific rundown of every single available piece of information that is applicable to a single object. It cannot be because, as you point out, no two humans are alike. This is implicit in the definition of "human" as being the name of a species. That's it. Just because "dog" represents a huge number of very different individual organisms doesn't mean that "dog" has no meaning. And if I say "All dogs..." then I am referring to the entire set of objects that fall under the label of "dog." You don't want rights to apply to a given species because you desire the ability to discriminate against certain members of said species. Is it any wonder why the common label for this species is inadequate for you? The dictionary definition is only inane and only "too general" to people who wish to discriminate against members of our species. Understand: The only people who find the dictionary definition of human unacceptable are the people who do not want every "human" to have rights.

You say that the dictionary definition of human is just a synonym for human. What dictionary definition is not a synonym for itself? I

Did you ever see the movie Anger Management? Jack Nicholson's character asks Adam Sandler's character to tell the group who he is. He tells them about his job, and Nicholson says "I don't want to know what you do, I want to know who you are." Sandler goes on to say that he enjoys tennis. "We don't need to know about your hobbies, just tell us who you are." Adam then tells the group that he is a friendly guy who is a little shy. Nicholson says "You are describing your personality, I want to know who you are." Obviously, Adam gets angry and thus moves the plot along.

This is exactly what you are doing. Anyone can do it and it does not constitute an argument. If you choose to continue down this path, I will use this tactic as well and we will find that all honest communication will cease. If I ask you to define computer for me, no matter what definition you give me, I can simply say "That's not a concise enough definition, it's a synonym. So why not exclude PC's from the term 'computer?'" You would then likely defend your definition in a similar way to the way I am. Did you know that the definition of a computer is a "device for making calculations?" Can I rationally call that a synonym for "computer" and not a definition? Aren't all definitions synonyms?

The definition of human is clear and concise. Just like the definition of computer. You admit that the dictionary definition of human is nothing more than a synonym for human, therefore we are in agreement, even if you do not admit it. It simply includes things that you do not want to have rights. Therefore, instead of playing the answer rejection game and restating your question, you need a new word for where we should apply rights. Might I suggest "person," as most pro-choice and pro-slavery humans love to embrace the fact that not all humans are persons, (depending on how we choose to define person,) even though it is not a relevant premise if they conclude that there ought to be inalienable human rights in addition to the right for a person to choose their preferred lifestyle over the life of a non-person.

long winded fool

While I admit that my analogies are entirely inadequate to describe the feelings and reactions of the humans in question, they are entirely adequate to describe the legal situation, and that is all that matters. Feelings don't matter where life is concerned. This goes back to my statement that if the right to life is inalienable, then all other concerns are secondary. It doesn't matter one iota whether the concern is mild inconvenience or serious physical and emotional trauma. While I have much more empathy for the latter, it doesn't matter. It is a secondary concern and can never become a primary concern until life is threatened. This cannot logically be altered without destroying the inalienable human right to exist.

long winded fool

It is logically impossible to be better off not being born at all. In order to be better off, you must first exist. Having a fate, no matter how unpleasant, is better than having no fate. Hope is always available where life exists.

Pardon the expression, but this is a secular version of dogma. I hear this argument all the time and everyone who uses it believes it is true without any critical analysis. I used to believe that no one is harmed in abortions and that, rather than the destruction of a human, what was really taking place is simply the choice to not allow a human to come into existence. No harm there. Notice I use the word "believe" because that's all I ever did. I assumed that everyone else was right, because they said things that made me feel good. Now, instead of "believing" that the potential for a human being is the only thing being ended, I "think" that this is not the case. Instead of using my "heart" and relying on blind faith, I used my brain and examined exactly what it was I was espousing to the religious types, and found that I was wrong. Because a human being is defined as a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens, I now know that it is dishonest on my part to claim that the only thing being ended is the potential for a human being, if abortion destroys a member of the species homo sapiens. Because this is indisputably the case, abortion is legal homicide, plain and simple. The only potential being precluded is the same potential that is precluded when any human is destroyed. The potential to continue living. The question for me is not whether abortion kills a human, (anyone can answer this, if they are actually seeking an answer and not just looking for support for a personal opinion) it is "is this a good thing?" As for the latter question, all of my investigations point to the answer "no." It doesn't make me popular with the people I most often choose to interact with but the problem is obviously on their part, not mine. They choose to ignore facts and act on emotion, thereby misinterpreting a bad action for a good one. And they say that only religious types are susceptible to this.

Yahzi

One basic human right is the right to own your own body; to be not be forced to yield your labor, internal organs, or blood supply to some other person.

If your existance requires you to be attached to another person, that other person's right to own their own body trumps your "right" to exist.

The point is, defending the right to aborton does not require one to assume that fetuses are not persons.

But simple logic does require one to assume that objects that lack functioning human brains are not human.

Yahzi

Right now there are children starving to death all over this planet. I don't see you bankrupting yourself to send food to Africa. In fact, I suspect if I came and took all your money to give to tsunami victims, you would be outraged. So apparently, when you say all other concerns are secondary, you mean all other concerns except your own.

Not a terribly convincing platform for public policy, as I see it.

Yahzi

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Yahzi

Given that you are going to make up facts to suit your fancy, no logical argument is possible.

Spanky

If you are as much of a freethinker and rationalist as you claim you are you would know that there is no "right to life." As Sagan so eloquently put it: "tell that to the 5,000 children who die everyday from preventable malnutrition (or something to that effect).
The more vile that comes out of your fingers the more adament I become that you have no foundation to stand on. You disgust me, actually.
It doesn't matter one iota if there is a "mild inconvenience?" More like a "major burden." Serious physical and emotional trauma? Who cares? If you but knew. . .
But I am sorry, you are the only one that has thought these things out and the rest of us have not. I wish to the non-god you could get pregnant in a time you did not want to. You would think differently. But I feel you are incapable of empathy.
Everyone who uses it believes it is true without any critical analysis? I am not the accused but I gaurantee you I have spent more hours thinking of this subject. But I guess I am not capable of critical analysis. Only Long Winded Fools are.
The more you spit out your mouth the less I believe.

I would beg to differ with you. You are using your heart and not your mind to come to your conclusions.
You know that anything under 20 weeks doesn't have the brain development that even comes close to resembling a HUMANS brain activity. Not even close. I would say a worm has more faculties than an 8 week old embryo. If you saw a picture of a cat embryo and a human embryo @ 6 weeks side by side and you were asked to pick the one that was HUMAN, I gaurantee you would pick the one that was the cat and say that it was the HUMAN cause it sure "looks" more human.
No, I think with my mind and feel with my "heart" (I hate that expression, emotions come from the mind not the heart). If I felt with my heart I would come to the conclusion that abortion is bad. Why? Because a potential could be! But when I think with my mind. . .you know, the critical thinking part. then I realize that it is not a HUMAN we are talking about. Not yet anyways. It is a human zygt/blstcst/embryo/fetus. There is a reason science has named them thus in their various stages (and this was before abortion--though abortion has been around forever).
Now on the other hand the woman/girl is a HUMAN. But who cares about her secondary concerns of inconvenience, pain and emotions. She IS JUST AN INCUBATOR. Bull Shit! I question if you have done any critical thinking at all about the subject. I am pro-life, that is why I am pro-choice, for what IS is more important that what COULD BE.
Also, I realize that an induced abortion is not natural. Well, neither is the medicine and medical practices we have at our disposal to save every fucking fetus that is past 26 weeks that is born premature. You know the doctors saying: "no fetus will beat us." This is not natural. Millions of babies destined to die (and mothers--but they are just sidekicks) yet we interceded and saved many. Is that natural? So, where are we now? More are coming than going. Oh, but tis better to be than not. Yea, eventually our population will double every 40 years if this keeps up. Isn't nature about checks and balance. Well abortion is the balance. I am afraid it is not enough, however.
But, so much for my thinking. You are right and I am wrong.
Go back to my monk analogy which you spun around and refused to see the value in. What was bad for the minnows was good for the pelicans. The same is with abortion. It is not ALL BAD nor is it ALL GOOD. You have chosen the slippery slope and say that it is ALL BAD. You ignore the facts, turn @ us and say we do all while acting on your own emotion. I say you need to start at the drawing board and do some more reading and try to put yourself in someone elses shoes. Then you can find yourself in the middle. But I feel you are incapable of this!

Spin spin spin the globe, it's your turn to spin the globe.